"Testers are not to assume a vehicle will be parked for 11 months of the year. They have to assume the vehicle will be used as intended, anything borderline should be considered bad enough for a fail.
It's not their neck they're risking, it's yours! Most inspectors take their responsibilities seriously, thankfully.
Although I consider myself able enough to determine if a certain component requires replacement or not, I do appreciate the pointers that inspectors offer when inspecting my vehicles"
Agree entirely Piet, but here in the UK, if the vehicle is fit for use at the time of the test, it doesn't fail, what happens now (changed in the last ten years) is there is a warning on the MOT cert which is listed as "advisory notes", f.e. if your car has four tyres and three of them are above 1.5mm by a big margin and one is measuring 1.6mm (UK min is 1.50mm for cars and 1.00mm for bikes, "visible tread" for under 50cc) the car/bike passes but you have an "advisory", same goes for ball joints that are sound, but perceptable wear is evident, so small that you could not even measure it, .as was my case back in 1970, the idiot tester didnt notice that the car was rotten enough for the doors to pinch, I only owned it for two months and hated it anyway, was getting shot, not that this formulates an excuse.
CLEM
recently my son had his Transit Trend MOT tested and it passed with flying colours, however, the rear nearside wheel bearing was howling and clearly needed replacement, this doesnt show up during the MOT, since the van is not driven on the highway, but tested on a rolling road, brakes steering wheel bearings etc, there is no play perceptible, so it passed, the bearings where changed two days later.The tester knew nothing of it
)
