board_home 

Visit the
UK MOT Testing
Industry Portal



 Moderated by: Stealth, MOTman, KevG, bimmer Topic closed
AuthorPost
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.

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

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.
 

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???

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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? 

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?

Aylesbury Jock
Member


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

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 ?

:?

 

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:?:?:?

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 ;)

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;)

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: 

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!!!


 


 


 

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.!

;)


volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Bright Ideas? wrote:


I asked the question on my last refresher course regarding the "Items not tested" function, I was advised that the reason that function is there is to allow VE's to bypass some parts of the mot examination, i.e. a recently tested vehicle had passed the emissions test, where the printout is available and the VE has seen it, so no need to carry out further emissions test by VE. 


 


the problem herein lies that using the item not tested function automatically results in a VT30 being issued !!!i had a vt55 "station visit"at my last station and i had used the function along with a PRS for a headlamp bulb//aim..i was asked why i did it and the VE said he didn't have a problem because i wasn't hiding anything:shock:..all i want is a straight answer as per manual//testing guide to use or not..i still believe "the guru"stealth..but always get conflicting information from local VE'S:?:?

can of worms here:D

Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KevG wrote: ? When someone deciphers that please let me know !

don`t you mean interpre-"tated"?:?

"cheesy ones";)

"brake application" uneven, "brake release" uneven.:P

KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
? When someone deciphers that please let me know !

Bright Ideas?
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
kit1958 wrote: I have used the "item not tested" when I have come across a binding brake, making it impossable to assess a wheel bearing, as instructed be our VE. How else do you cya on an item you can not asses? Should the whole test be abandoned? :?
PS if I remeber correct it was shown on vt30 as not tested. Where is the prob?


I asked the question on my last refresher course regarding the "Items not tested" function, I was advised that the reason that function is there is to allow VE's to bypass some parts of the mot examination, i.e. a recently tested vehicle had passed the emissions test, where the printout is available and the VE has seen it, so no need to carry out further emissions test by VE.

The other point(s), i.e. binding brakes and wheel bearings not fully examined are good examples. The roller brake test would indicate a binding brake, if slightly then that part is a pass and advise, if significant then it fails, as we all know, but there are other areas of a roller brake test, which in my experience would pick up other faults that will cause the binding brake to fail a test, even if advised as slightly binding, please let me explain further;

The rate of increase and decrease of brakes applies to both the steered axle and the rear axle. Having been advised from VOSA their interpretation of "Increase and Decrease" at about the "Same Rate" has been advised to be at about 20Kgf indifference across the axle being tested.

So in regards the steered axle, if a brake is binding would the brakes across the front axle increase at about the same rate from rest upto and including 40Kgf across the axle, at which point further application of the brake is then looking for an out of balance below 25%.

When the front brakes efforts reduce with a binding brake, would the brakes efforts reduce at about the same rate, i.e. within 20Kgf indifference across the axle?

The roller brake test will fail most brake defects if carried out as per the manual guidlines, but must be correctly interpretated otherwise defects can be passed where they should fail?

With regards a binding brake stopping a full assessment of a wheel bearing, we were also informed on the last refresher course that it is a pass and advise, and if a retest is necessary, then it is checked on the retest and if necessary a further VT30 issued, unless its OK.:D

Sorry for the rant but could not explain it in a short hand version, might not have been understood:D

KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Why would you abandon the test?

If the brake is binding you can't asses the the bearings.

Would you abandon the test if a front indicator bulb is blown ( as you are unable to asses the colour?) Of course not. 

When you retest the brake you test the bearing, if it is rough etc. fail it.

 

Kev

kit1958
Trade Member


Joined: Sat May 15th, 2010
Location: The Finest Country On Earth , United Kingdom
Posts: 1099
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I have used the "item not tested" when I have come across a binding brake, making it impossable to assess a wheel bearing, as instructed be our VE. How else do you cya on an item you can not asses? Should the whole test be abandoned? :?
PS if I remeber correct it was shown on vt30 as not tested. Where is the prob?

Last edited on Wed Mar 16th, 2011 02:27 am by kit1958

volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
KevG wrote: Volks jim. Your second scenario re. headlamp bulb.

RFR box says: (To paraphrase)

1."Headlamps defects that DO require further beam test ."


2."Headlamp defects that DONT require a further beam test."

 

You use the first one!

You have tested the lamp, and it doesnt work, so you fail it and carry out the beam test on the retest.

The second one can be used if PRS'd or for main beam etc.

 

Stealth may have the exact wording, I dont have a manual here with me!

 

Kev



used that function kev but no note is automatically printed on either vt30 or vt32 to say that aim was  not tested :? on items not tested i click check box headlamp aim not tested which results in an automatic fail :?:?..also why am i gettin mixed messages from whatever VE i ask??? i had a peek through the users guide and there is no mention of the items not tested function????would it be too easy for vosa to issue a special notice regarding whether to use or not regarding this function???the last thing anyone would want is for action to be taken regarding use of this function..

stealth i believe you mate!!!is it in the users guide not to use this function?have i missed a special notice?why can it be accessed by mere nt's if its a VE function?i had to get my AE to authorise functions so i could order test slots and such like..should it not only be available to VE's? loads of questions here..sorry!! i am aware of the screen saying to use the abandon function if test can't be completed hence the question//confusion:D:D

KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Volks jim. Your second scenario re. headlamp bulb.

RFR box says: (To paraphrase)

1."Headlamps defects that DO require further beam test ."


2."Headlamp defects that DONT require a further beam test."

 

You use the first one!

You have tested the lamp, and it doesnt work, so you fail it and carry out the beam test on the retest.

The second one can be used if PRS'd or for main beam etc.

 

Stealth may have the exact wording, I dont have a manual here with me!

 

Kev

Last edited on Wed Mar 16th, 2011 01:34 am by KevG

KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
On a partial retest. the testing NT would only be liable for the retested item if it came to a disiplinary. (And related items I expect. ie any bolts calipers etc removed during repairs) so no real need to cover yourself.

 

Bright Ideas?
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Wesley wrote: Stealth wrote: volksjim wrote: so do we or dont we use the items not tested box??? i seem to get a different answer from each VE...i use it and haven't been "done" yet!! 2 scenarios emissions test can't be done so do i abort test ???nope i just fail on items not tested and advise car might fail on retest......another one...dip beam bulb is out so do i still abort test because i can't test headlamp aim??? general concencus up here appears to use the function :?:? so who's right and who's wrong if the VE's don't all give the same reply to my question..whats the general take on it here??/?

Don't use it is the VOSA stance - use the abandon test function.

Items not tested is for VE use when partially re-examining a vehicle. ;)

 nice one,;) "what if"? an NT does a partial re-test on a vehicle examined by another NT?.........:D   


My view, not section 8 drivers view of the road lol:D is to Pass and Advise:D

Along the lines of used as an example, just checked the fuel cap seal now OK, rest of vehicle condition unknown, having conducted a partial re-examination only, original NT's documents issued to account for orginal test results:D, or something like that?

KevG
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Aug 16th, 2006
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1579
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Its for the VE.

Was told at m/c  refresher last month that the reason its still visible to mere mortal NT's, is that Siemens wants an arm and a leg to revise the software?!

 

Kev

Wesley
Trade Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: Wanted
Posts: 1841
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stealth wrote: volksjim wrote: so do we or dont we use the items not tested box??? i seem to get a different answer from each VE...i use it and haven't been "done" yet!! 2 scenarios emissions test can't be done so do i abort test ???nope i just fail on items not tested and advise car might fail on retest......another one...dip beam bulb is out so do i still abort test because i can't test headlamp aim??? general concencus up here appears to use the function :?:? so who's right and who's wrong if the VE's don't all give the same reply to my question..whats the general take on it here??/?

Don't use it is the VOSA stance - use the abandon test function.

Items not tested is for VE use when partially re-examining a vehicle. ;)

 nice one,;) "what if"? an NT does a partial re-test on a vehicle examined by another NT?.........:D   

Stealth
Super Moderator


Joined: Wed Oct 31st, 2007
Location: Back To Reality, United Kingdom
Posts: 1513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
volksjim wrote: so do we or dont we use the items not tested box??? i seem to get a different answer from each VE...i use it and haven't been "done" yet!! 2 scenarios emissions test can't be done so do i abort test ???nope i just fail on items not tested and advise car might fail on retest......another one...dip beam bulb is out so do i still abort test because i can't test headlamp aim??? general concencus up here appears to use the function :?:? so who's right and who's wrong if the VE's don't all give the same reply to my question..whats the general take on it here??/?

Don't use it is the VOSA stance - use the abandon test function.

Items not tested is for VE use when partially re-examining a vehicle. ;)

Last edited on Tue Mar 15th, 2011 05:27 am by Stealth

volksjim
Trade Member
 

Joined: Sun Nov 18th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 300
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
so do we or dont we use the items not tested box??? i seem to get a different answer from each VE...i use it and haven't been "done" yet!! 2 scenarios emissions test can't be done so do i abort test ???nope i just fail on items not tested and advise car might fail on retest......another one...dip beam bulb is out so do i still abort test because i can't test headlamp aim??? general concencus up here appears to use the function :?:? so who's right and who's wrong if the VE's don't all give the same reply to my question..whats the general take on it here??/?



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2011 Data 1 Systems