MOT failure - warning light on display?

[Nasti Chestikov]

I may have got this wrong so please forgive me if I have.

Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an immediate MOT failure?

Except I've just taken delivery of a new VW Touareg, two of the warning lights are "service due" and "key in battery needs replacing".

Please tell me that a battery in my key that might need replacing isn't a justifiable reason for deeming my vehicle as "unroadworthy"?

I must be missing something?

[Robert]

Aren't some lights on the increasingly more comprehensive
dashboards for information or status indicators ?
Without delving into the literature maybe warning lamps are Red ?

[Andy Burns]

Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an immediate MOT failure?

Don't think so ... but some are e.g. for a car with ABS, then failure of an ABS
light to come on, and then go off is a fail ... maybe others.

[Robert]

On 10/04/2022 17:31, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles

[Theo]

Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an
> immediate MOT failure?
>
> Except I've just taken delivery of a new VW Touareg, two of the warning
> lights are "service due" and "key in battery needs replacing".
>
> Please tell me that a battery in my key that might need replacing isn't a
> justifiable reason for deeming my vehicle as "unroadworthy"?
>
> I must be missing something?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles

Only steering, ABS, stability control, TPMS and engine management (MIL) lights are
checked. TPMS (post 2010 cars) if it shows a fault, not a low tyre.

So you're probably OK, unless your car decides that any minor issue is a
'check engine' light.

Theo

[Martin Brown]

On 10/04/2022 17:31, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> I may have got this wrong so please forgive me if I have.
>
> Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an immediate MOT failure?

I don't know what the actual rules for warning lights are for MOT, but
my dashboard display reports "parking light failure" when the parking
lights are in fact all quite obviously working.

The main dealer where I bought the car and usually have it MOT'd and
serviced has never had any bother with passing it (nor did Kwickfit who
I used once during lockdown) - although they both refused point blank to
disable the spurious parking light warning on engine start.

The true error is actually "parking light failure sensor fail".

One problem with ever more complicated "smart" car electronics is that
the automatic diagnostics themselves are now capable of failing and
misleading the unwary. The repair price for this "fault" was ludicrous!

> Except I've just taken delivery of a new VW Touareg, two of the warning lights are "service due" and "key in battery needs replacing".

It is pretty bad if the key battery is already on it's last legs on
delivery. I would not have accepted a car supplied in that state. YMMV

They normally last about 5 years from new. Mine is on its third battery.

> Please tell me that a battery in my key that might need replacing isn't a justifiable reason for deeming my vehicle as "unroadworthy"?
>
> I must be missing something?

Why did you accept the car if it was flagging errors on the dashboard
brand new in the showroom? MOT won't matter for 3 years if it was new.

The key fob batteries are not expensive (unless you buy them from a main
dealer at rip off prices). Dealer presumably does vehicle service.

I ask again. WTF did you drive it off the forecourt?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[JNugent]

My car passed its MOT in January with the "Service" light showing.

Have you not got a spare key?

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbh8tv...@mid.individual.net>, at 00:52:31 on Mon, 11
Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

That light doesn't appear to bean MOT fail. It just means you are a
little over the recommended service interval, or even that the last
recent service they couldn't/wouldn't reset the mileage counter.

The main safety thing (brakes, tyres etc) will be checked as part of the
MOT anyway, as well as emissions etc.

>Have you not got a spare key?

If it's normal key fob with a button cell, they are easily replaced.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <t2velh$car$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 21:28:33 on Sun, 10 Apr
2022, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:

>On 10/04/2022 17:31, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
>> I may have got this wrong so please forgive me if I have.
>> Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an
>>immediate MOT failure?
>
>I don't know what the actual rules for warning lights are for MOT, but
>my dashboard display reports "parking light failure" when the parking
>lights are in fact all quite obviously working.
>
>The main dealer where I bought the car and usually have it MOT'd and
>serviced has never had any bother with passing it (nor did Kwickfit who
>I used once during lockdown) - although they both refused point blank
>to disable the spurious parking light warning on engine start.
>
>The true error is actually "parking light failure sensor fail".
>
>One problem with ever more complicated "smart" car electronics is that
>the automatic diagnostics themselves are now capable of failing and
>misleading the unwary. The repair price for this "fault" was ludicrous!

My second car is booked into an independent garage to have a "check
engine" 'fault' looked into. But I already know it's *not* the engine,
but the gearbox, where a sensor has reported becoming intermittent.

Absolutely no-one will attempt to fix/replace the sensor, so it's a
reconditioned gearbox required. That's most likely £1500,

>> Except I've just taken delivery of a new VW Touareg, two of the
>>warning lights are "service due" and "key in battery needs replacing".
>
>It is pretty bad if the key battery is already on it's last legs on
>delivery. I would not have accepted a car supplied in that state. YMMV

They can go out suddenly, even the week after you've bought a car (and
maybe started using it, rather than it sitting in a a parking lot
somewhere). Battery about £3 (depending on where you get it) and DIY
fitting usually OK. I would usually put new one(s) in straight away,
although it's shame that vendors don't.

>They normally last about 5 years from new. Mine is on its third battery.

My first car doesn't have dry batteries, it's rechargeable, contactless
from the slot in the dashboard.

>> Please tell me that a battery in my key that might need replacing
>>isn't a justifiable reason for deeming my vehicle as "unroadworthy"?
>> I must be missing something?
>
>Why did you accept the car if it was flagging errors on the dashboard
>brand new in the showroom? MOT won't matter for 3 years if it was new.
>
>The key fob batteries are not expensive (unless you buy them from a
>main dealer at rip off prices). Dealer presumably does vehicle service.
>
>I ask again. WTF did you drive it off the forecourt?

We don't know these issues were present at that stage.

A friend bought a secondhand car from a dealer during Covid, and there
were no lights visible at the time. But three came on within days.
Dealer immediately agreed to have the issues fixed (one of which
involved him taking it to a franchised dealer because of these pesky
'main dealer only' fixes, which makes me think he had his suspicions).
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 11/04/2022 11:06 am, Roland Perry wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>> Nasti Chestikov wrote:
>
>>> I may have got this wrong so please forgive me if I have.
>>>  Apparently, *any* warning light present on the dash display is an
>>> immediate MOT failure?
>
>>>  Except I've just taken delivery of a new VW Touareg, two of the
>>> warning lights are "service due" and "key in battery needs replacing".
>>>  Please tell me that a battery in my key that might need replacing
>>> isn't a justifiable reason for deeming my vehicle as "unroadworthy"?
>>>  I must be missing something?
>
>> My car passed its MOT in January with the "Service" light showing.
>
> That light doesn't appear to bean MOT fail. It just means you are a
> little over the recommended service interval, or even that the last
> recent service they couldn't/wouldn't reset the mileage counter.

That latter is what happened. The car is well outside its guarantee
period now, and I get the local garage to do the annual service in
conjunction with an MOT.

> The main safety thing (brakes, tyres etc) will be checked as part of the
> MOT anyway, as well as emissions etc.

>> Have you not got a spare key?

> If it's normal key fob with a button cell, they are easily replaced.

Yes, but just using the spare on th day of the test would be even simpler.

[It recently cost me £210 for a new key because the original spare
managed to end up in storage for shipping to the USA (and will be so for
many months yet). I could no longer stand the thought of what would
happen if I mislaid the one remaining key.]

[Nasti Chestikov]

Apologies, I wasn't overly clear.

Those two warning lights are part of the information provided to the driver - they weren't illuminated when I drove it off the forecourt!

I was just curious about three years down the line (why do new cars need MOTs after such a short time anyway??) that it could fail because of a low battery in the key fob :-)

[Roland Perry]

In message <67eefa8c-65c6-4662...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:23:33 on Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Nasti Chestikov
<nasti.c...@gmail.com> remarked:

>I was just curious about three years down the line (why do new cars
>need MOTs after such a short time anyway??)

When that came in, it was a significant way into a car's useful life.
And brakes/tyres etc might need replacing anyway. Very difficult to walk
back deadlines such as this.
--
Roland Perry

[notya...@gmail.com]

Airbag warning light too IIRC.

[notya...@gmail.com]

Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.

[JNugent]

There was a proposal a few years ago to put back the first test date to
four years after registration and then for tests to be bi-annual.

I wonder why that was never implemented?

[JNugent]

>> Apologies, I wasn't overly clear.
>>
>> Those two warning lights are part of the information provided to the driver - they weren't illuminated when I drove it off the forecourt!
>>
>> I was just curious about three years down the line (why do new cars need MOTs after such a short time anyway??) that it could fail because of a low battery in the key fob :-)
>
> Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.

There are not many tyres or brake linings that will be good for 50,000+
miles. You'd expect those to have needed to have attention by then. That
does not mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy (as long as the
replacements are made).

Perhaps also the exhaust system - though my last car did 160,000 in
eight years without needing any attention to the exhaust system.

[Fredxx]

But if removed, it becomes a minor. Assuming they notice it doesn't work.

[Fredxx]

My understanding was stats show a large proportion of cars at 3 years
failing.

Not sure why it should fail an MOT with a non-working fob. While some
locking fuel caps require the vehicle to be locked to stop tampering
most will allow you to lock the car through other means.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbj5kd...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:08:29 on Mon, 11
Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>>> I was just curious about three years down the line (why do new cars
>>>need MOTs after such a short time anyway??) that it could fail
>>>because of a low battery in the key fob :-)

>> Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would
>>not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering
>>linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.
>
>There are not many tyres or brake linings that will be good for 50,000+
>miles. You'd expect those to have needed to have attention by then.
>That does not mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy (as long as the
>replacements are made).

What it does mean, however, is that TPTB think it's a good idea that
vehicles should be checked to make sure sufficient attention *has*
been paid.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbj5e0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:05:04 on Mon, 11
Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

Find out who proposed it, what consultations they did, then read the
results.
--
Roland Perry

[Theo]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <jbj5e0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:05:04 on Mon, 11
> Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

> >There was a proposal a few years ago to put back the first test date to
> >four years after registration and then for tests to be bi-annual.
> >
> >I wonder why that was never implemented?
>
> Find out who proposed it, what consultations they did, then read the
> results.

I believe it was proposed harmonisation with the EU vehicle inspection
regime. In other EU countries the minimum is every 2 years starting at year
4. However the harmonisation is not primarily about the frequency, but
about aligning the tests as well - in particular given changes in vehicle
technology.

Brexit intervened, but the EU is still looking at the subject:
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020-09-ETSC-Briefing-on-Roadworthiness-Package-Implementation-Reports_update16Oct.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13132-Vehicle-safety-revising-the-EU%E2%80%99s-roadworthiness-package_en

Theo

[Martin Brown]

On 12/04/2022 07:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jbj5e0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:05:04 on Mon, 11
> Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
>> On 11/04/2022 05:35 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <67eefa8c-65c6-4662...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> at  08:23:33 on Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Nasti Chestikov
>>> <nasti.c...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> I was just curious about three years down the line (why do new cars
>>>> need MOTs after such a short time anyway??)
>
>>>  When that came in, it was a significant way into a car's useful
>>> life.  And brakes/tyres etc might need replacing anyway. Very
>>> difficult to walk  back deadlines such as this.
>>
>> There was a proposal a few years ago to put back the first test date
>> to four years after registration and then for tests to be bi-annual.
>>
>> I wonder why that was never implemented?

MOT garages objected to not getting their annual cut of the action.

They can usually find a worn tyre, brake shoes or lamp or two to replace
on careless owner's cars at usurious prices.

> Find out who proposed it, what consultations they did, then read the
> results.

I suspect that with modern new build cars years 4, 6 and then yearly
would be a much more appropriate regime for MOT inspections.

The old days of British made cars with bodywork that would rust through
completely inside 5 years and then fall apart have long gone.

Incidentally why are police allowing vehicles to drive around
unchallenged with massively dense orange mirror shading on the
windscreen? I thought obstructing the windscreen with a filter was a
strict offence. I have seen a few recently in the dodgier parts of town.

They are not at all subtle.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:04:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 05:38 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 17:16:46 UTC+1, nasti.c...@gmail.com wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.
> There are not many tyres or brake linings that will be good for 50,000+
> miles.

True.

> You'd expect those to have needed to have attention by then. That
> does not mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy (as long as the
> replacements are made).

The MoT is to check that.

My only recent MoT failure was due to a cut on the inside sidewall that I could not see and TPMS had not detected as it did not leak. Fairly new tyre too so £££

>
> Perhaps also the exhaust system - though my last car did 160,000 in
> eight years without needing any attention to the exhaust system.

Not so much it leaking, but high emissions due to fuel system problems, engine wear etc.

[Vir Campestris]

On 11/04/2022 16:23, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> why do new cars need MOTs after such a short time anyway??

<https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7912477/The-20-new-cars-likely-FAIL-MOT-test.html>

Because quite a lot of them fail.

Andy

[JNugent]

On 12/04/2022 02:32 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:04:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 05:38 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 17:16:46 UTC+1, nasti.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> SNIP
>
>>>
>>> Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.
>> There are not many tyres or brake linings that will be good for 50,000+
>> miles.
>
> True.
>
>> You'd expect those to have needed to have attention by then. That
>> does not mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy (as long as the
>> replacements are made).
>
> The MoT is to check that.

The point where the vehicle failed to be up to standard in respect of
tyres and brake linings will have been reached long before 50,000 miles.

Would you change the date of the first MOT from registration + three
years to registration + 2 years? Or even + 1 year?

> My only recent MoT failure was due to a cut on the inside sidewall that I could not see and TPMS had not detected as it did not leak. Fairly new tyre too so £££

>
>> Perhaps also the exhaust system - though my last car did 160,000 in
>> eight years without needing any attention to the exhaust system.
>
> Not so much it leaking, but high emissions due to fuel system problems, engine wear etc.

It passed the test from years 3 to 8.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbmldh...@mid.individual.net>, at 01:56:17 on Wed, 13

Apr 2022, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:

>On 12/04/2022 02:32 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:04:23 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 05:38 pm, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 17:16:46 UTC+1, nasti.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> SNIP
>>
>>>> Depends a bit on mileage. 50k miles in the first three years would
>>>>not be unusual, so things like tyres, brakes, emissions, steering
>>>>linkages could all be showing signs of significant wear.

>>> There are not many tyres or brake linings that will be good for 50,000+
>>> miles.

>> True.
>>
>>> You'd expect those to have needed to have attention by then. That
>>> does not mean that the vehicle is unroadworthy (as long as the
>>> replacements are made).

>> The MoT is to check that.
>
>The point where the vehicle failed to be up to standard in respect of
>tyres and brake linings will have been reached long before 50,000 miles.

If every (even most) cars being put into a 3yr MOT had that mileage,
this might be a useful line of enquiry. But they aren't, so it isn't.

>Would you change the date of the first MOT from registration + three
>years to registration + 2 years? Or even + 1 year?

3yrs is the current standard, and catches all vehicles, irrespective of
mileage. Whether they are 60%, 120%, 180% or whatever the mileage one
set of brakes/tyres lasts.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <t3496g$ldr$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Tue, 12 Apr
2022, Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

It's interesting that almost all the ones in the "best 20", are cars
very likely to be strictly serviced at main dealers. As well as being at
the more expensive end of the spectrum.

Honda Jazz is an outlier, but they are often bought as low mileage
runabouts by the well-heeled retired, who will also tend to have cars
serviced on schedule.

I'd like to see numbers on how many of those failing because of wipers
were on their first set, and whether the headlamp mis-alignments were
present since new.

It'd be interesting to see results once these various weightings have
been eliminated (but I doubt the data is available).
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

I wouldn't be easily convinced that the first MOT requirement shouldn't
be shifted to registration + four (maybe as many as five or six) years
(then biannual tests).

The original requirement (circa 1960) was registration + 10 years and
was brought down in stages to R + three years. When it was R + 10, I
can't remember any outcry about death trap cars of five years old.

And that was in the days when many, if not most, European (and British)
cars were already rotting away underneath before being supplied new and
were all made out of ticky-tacky and legendary Swedish steel.

Modern cars are good for twenty years if properly looked after.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbo096...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:07:50 on Wed, 13

You aren't the person needing convincing, though.

>The original requirement (circa 1960) was registration + 10 years and
>was brought down in stages to R + three years.

Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. They started at
10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
tested before they leave the factory."
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

True. I would nevertheless expect that any reasonable person, properly
apprised of the relevant facts and on being advised about the
differences in vehicle technology and quality between 1960 and 2022,
would take the same view.

According to reports, it seems to have gone that way in some other
European countries. And there are even some USA states which have no
annual "inspection" requirements at all.

Have you read any reports from any of those places of carnage on the
roads caused by older vehicles lacking a piece of paper?

No, me neither.

>> The original requirement (circa 1960) was registration + 10 years and
>> was brought down in stages to R + three years.
>
> Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. They started at
> 10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
> tested before they leave the factory."

In 1965 (say), there might have been merit in that.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 15:41:17 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
SNIP

> Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. They started at
> 10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
> tested before they leave the factory."
> --
> Roland Perry

There was famously a chap who bought a new Lada and had the AA inspect it before accepting delivery. Funnily enough it was fine.

[Roland Perry]

In message <jbo6nk...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:57:56 on Wed, 13

Taking into account the greater complexity of modern vehicles, and the
significantly increased number of checks required to pass.

>>> The original requirement (circa 1960) was registration + 10 years
>>>and was brought down in stages to R + three years.

>> Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. They started
>>at 10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
>>tested before they leave the factory."
>
>In 1965 (say), there might have been merit in that.

I think there just as much merit today, in vehicles being tested when
driven off the production line, rather than the manufacturer hoping for
the best. Although many externalise this to "pre-delivery checks" by the
dealer.
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

I was under the impression that we were referring to official and
legally-required inspections and tests by an impartial agent working on
behalf of the relevant government department.

The need for a final inspection at the factory and another inspection on
receipt by the dealer is fairly obvious but a separate issue.

These days, no-one carrying out such an inspection would be expecting to
find rust on the underside of the vehicle (whereas it was common fifty
years ago, when volume cars lasted nine or ten years if you were lucky
and you didn't really expect any better).

[Nasti Chestikov]

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 08:09:08 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

> I think there just as much merit today, in vehicles being tested when
> driven off the production line, rather than the manufacturer hoping for
> the best. Although many externalise this to "pre-delivery checks" by the
> dealer.
> --
> Roland Perry

Slightly off topic but relevant I think, there's a guy on YouTube with a channel called
New Home Quality Control, he's employed to go and check on new build houses in the UK.

Some of the stuff on his channel is outrageous, people paying £400k for houses with walls 37mm out of true, for example.

It's well worth half an hour of your time - you'll never consider buying a new house in the UK again, trust me.

[Nick Cat]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 19:59:11 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 15:41:17 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> SNIP
> > Flanders and Swann: "They've started testing cars now. They started at
> > 10 years, then 5, now three. There's even some talk of having them
> > tested before they leave the factory."

> There was famously a chap who bought a new Lada and had the AA inspect it before accepting delivery. Funnily enough it was fine.

A lot of them required remedial work by the UK dealer. It seems drunk ruskies didn't give a 4X.