Merry Xmas to everybody!

Last week I put my FF in for MOT test. It failed on o/s rear brake feed pipe and flexihose with an advisory note on the n/s rear feed pipe. Before the MOT I had been experiencing very slight brake fluid loss and asked the garage to check this. It turned out that the brake fluid leak was coming from the n/s rear! This was not picked up during the MOT test and is clearly a major safety issue!

The garage replaced the brake pipes from front to back on both sides as they were in ‘a dreadful state of corrosion’. They showed my a film clip of the pipes to confirm this.

This situation raises major concerns about the credibility of the MOT test.......

Stay safe.

Well...... it shows a concern regarding the credibility of that particulate tester rather than the test itself....

To be fair to the mot tester it is surprising how much of the rear brake pipes can't be seen with the wheels on the car, even if the car is on a lift.
As for the front to rear pipes, they are totally hidden by removable covers which the mot tester is not allowed to remove during a test.

Not my RR, but last year I took my Udo in for MOT and it passed but with a few advisories - worn bushes, that sort of thing. Because of lockdown etc the car has been garaged almost all year (done 237 miles) and I didn’t get round to booking it in to get addressed (it goes to a specialist for work rather than the place I get the mot done). Took it back to the same place and same tester this year, no advisories. 2012 RR Westminster TDV8
2008 Audi S5 4.2 V8
2006 Mazda MX-5 R/C Sport 2.0

Gone...
2007 RR Vogue SE 3.6 TDV8
2005 Ford Focus LX tdci 90
2006 Mazda RX-8
1996 Land Rover Discovery 300tdi
1998 BMW 523i
...

My understanding is that the MOT, apart from the efficiency test on the rollers, is just a visual brake test with nothing measured or removed to aid vision. 2010 3.6TDV8 Stornoway Grey/ Black interior - gone
2005 4.4V8 (M62) Bonatti Grey/ Parchment interior - gone
1998 4.6HSE Blue/ Cream interior (can't remember exact colours) - gone
1977 White - gone (should have kept)

the testers aren’t allowed to remove plastic coverings over the pipes, so can’t see them. Have to rely on seeing fluid dripping from them to conclude they are bad. I get what manufacturers cover them up, but surely they would be better left exposed. easier to change, easier to inspect, easier to coat up with some preventative grease every so often!

The only empirical testing is done on rollers, and a visual check of the system. They will fail it for corrosion of pipes, splits or leaks from the system, excessively pitted or scored discs, excessively worn discs, pas thickness below 1.5mm (I think) and that is about it... bar things being loose or damaged.

Every year the tester I use thoroughly checks the bits he can see and I occasionally get a pointer on the BmW that the front metal pipe is a bit rusty.... I keep greasing it up and it keeps passing. It only does a few hundred dry miles a year so isn’t a problem.

The rear flexi pipes on the FFRR were subject to a recall on some years so are a known problem area. There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
Fiat 500x 1.4 multiair Lounge 2015
2010 LR D4 Commercial 2.7 TDV6

The MOT only states that a car is/isn't roadworthy at a given time on a certain day

I lost faith in the objectivity of the MOT test when my car failed because of crack in the windscreen in zone A. The year before, at the same test station, the crack was evident and was at the edge of the windscreen near the bottom, so nowhere near zone A. Because of the shape of the crack, it wasn’t possible for it to develop further. When challenged, the reply was simply, “if we had seen it last year, we would have failed it”. Got - 2017 SDV8 Autobiography in Loire Blue
Had- 2008 TDV8 Vogue SE in Java black
Had - 2007 S/C in Stornoway Grey

Thanks for comments.

I would have thought if the MOT tester noticed a section of the brake pipes in a corroded condition that would justify removing the under panels to check the rest!

Anyway, who are we to think in such a logical way......

They are not permitted to, a general garage doing a test might recommend it after picking up a problem but a testing centre which is just doing a test won’t, they might pull it as an advisory, or note that the pipes weren’t checked due to plastic covers but more often than not they won’t. There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
Fiat 500x 1.4 multiair Lounge 2015
2010 LR D4 Commercial 2.7 TDV6

Unless the plastic covers or guards are non-oem the MOT tester isn’t allowed to put an advisory... everything hidden/cannot be seen must be assumed to be ok unless play is detected in suspension etc.

MOT guidance spells out clearly what is not an advisory in this instance

I bought a 1985 VW Scirocco earlier this year, complete with MOT, the tester must have been blind or a very good mate, rear brakes not working, wheel nuts missing/not fastning, wipers not working, washer, suspension and indicators all not working, all fixed, passed MOT at a proper MOT station without advisories, emissions needed some work to get them somewhere near but after a carburettor rebuild that was to be expected, still, some testers are clearly better than others.

kgeddes wrote:

This situation raises major concerns about the credibility of the MOT test.......

kgeddes wrote:

I would have thought if the MOT tester noticed a section of the brake pipes in a corroded condition that would justify removing the under panels to check the rest!

northernmonkeyjones wrote:

They are not permitted to, a general garage doing a test might recommend it after picking up a problem but a testing centre which is just doing a test won’t, they might pull it as an advisory, or note that the pipes weren’t checked due to plastic covers but more often than not they won’t.

News to me!!!

I had an Audi A3 from new with a full Audi service history and always advisory free MoTs until one year when the MoT had an advisory that some (OEM) covers stopped full inspection of something or other. I kicked off at the Audi dealership as they had instructions to do a "pre-MoT" in order to ensure no advisories (or fails) on my MoT history (I am a bit OCD like that!).

Anyway they said the MoT guidance had changed and the only way to avoid this type of advisory was to remove all the OEM covers before the MoT and refit them afterwards. Needless to say my OCD did not stretch to wasting money like that!

Each year thereafter the same advisory whinging about the OEM covers, until I purchased my FF and sold the A3.

As an aside, I had the A3 for over 14 years, never let me down, and was very cheap to run even with main dealer servicing.  2010 Range Rover TDV8 Baltic Blue Autobiography (2011 MY) - SOLD
1960 Land Rover SII SWB SW
2020 BMW R1250 RT LE
2021 Triton ST-125 (Monkey Bike)