# General > Motoring >  M.o.t. Advisories

## sam09

I recently replied to an advert for a car for sale as: 12 month M.O.T. FSH one owner. Find one cleaner.  Then done a vehicle check on the D.V.L.A. site to find the following advisories on the latest M.O.T:

*nearside rear door inner trim and door handle missing
slight exhaust leak and exhaust in poor condition
front brake discs in poor condition
offside front outer cv boot leaking grease slightly
both front brake hose ends in poor condition
nearside front bottom ball joint slight play
hand brake requires firm pull
nearside front to rear brake pipe slight corrosion.*I asked the seller if any of the advisories had been rectified, to be told that they had not.  Would you be happy to buy this car knowing these faults had not been rectified ?

Needless to say I walked away from it.

----------


## theone

> I recently replied to an advert for a car for sale as: 12 month M.O.T. FSH one owner. Find one cleaner.  Then done a vehicle check on the D.V.L.A. site to find the following advisories on the latest M.O.T:
> 
> *nearside rear door inner trim and door handle missing
> slight exhaust leak and exhaust in poor condition
> front brake discs in poor condition
> offside front outer cv boot leaking grease slightly
> both front brake hose ends in poor condition
> nearside front bottom ball joint slight play
> hand brake requires firm pull
> ...


An advisory is just that - advice. The vehicle has been declared safe to drive as it was on the day of the MOT.

None of those faults would put me off buying a car - as long as it was at the right price - I'd just be prepared to have them repaired at the next MOT.

----------


## dozy

> An advisory is just that - advice. The vehicle has been declared safe to drive as it was on the day of the MOT.
> 
> None of those faults would put me off buying a car - as long as it was at the right price - I'd just be prepared to have them repaired at the next MOT.


Sorry can't agree ,anything to do with brakes,steering ,suspension or anything that's not cosmetic must be right or it's just plain wrong . If something on the list failed or broke and it caused an accident that someone you cared for was hurt ,could you really love with it . Just get it sorted for all our sakes .

----------


## poppett

Once had an advisory regarding a chip on the windscreen (not in line of sight)   Did not get it rectified right away as had changed Insurance company and was not wanting to join up and claim immediately.   Forgot all about it until next MoT was due and put it in to the garage expecting the same advisory to show up, but it did not.   Each MoT examiner has different pet hates.

Would always want car to be spot on.   An MoT is only proof that the vehicle was roadworthy on the day it was tested.

----------


## olrig

Last yr I put my car in for the MOT. Failed on minor things (nothing of note). The owner of the garage (cracking guy) was on hols @ the time. One basic fail was on out of an alignment headlight bulb(?). I then took the car down to Barrow (car still MOT"d)
Got there & had son in law (mechanic) look over car. Lo & Behold car had a broken rear spring. The remains were completely rusty, suggesting being broken for some time. Moral: please don't take what is written on paper as the whole truth.
This potentially fatally flaw was overlooked, allowing me to travel down the A9, M74, M6 & beyond. Is there a set "card" testers have to go through before coming to a decision? (gases, etc, excluded). Comments would clarify, tks.

----------


## XR2

I'd say the crucial thing was did the seller declare the advisories to you and did the price reflect the fact it had these advisories were needing attention?  Nowadays I believe you can't sell a car with known faults without declaring them to the purchaser.  In regard to buying it, depends on the individual, if I was looking for something cheap and willing and able to do a bit of mechanic work then wouldn't have a problem with this provided the issues were highlighted from the start so you know what you are taking on. 

I agree with the comments that a car should be in tip top condition but things do wear out and from time to time stuff needs repaired or replaced which highlight the importance of regular servicing and giving or getting your vehicle checked over every now and again.  There is nothing on that list that can't be sorted by an average person at home with a reasonable tool kit the crucial thing is knowing what you are taking on and knowing what it will cost you to fix it.

----------


## chrismac

> Last yr I put my car in for the MOT. Failed on minor things (nothing of note). The owner of the garage (cracking guy) was on hols @ the time. One basic fail was on out of an alignment headlight bulb(?). I then took the car down to Barrow (car still MOT"d)
> Got there & had son in law (mechanic) look over car. Lo & Behold car had a broken rear spring. The remains were completely rusty, suggesting being broken for some time. Moral: please don't take what is written on paper as the whole truth.
> This potentially fatally flaw was overlooked, allowing me to travel down the A9, M74, M6 & beyond. Is there a set "card" testers have to go through before coming to a decision? (gases, etc, excluded). Comments would clarify, tks.


When you state  (car still MOT'd) do you mean the car then had the work done and new mot issued before you drove down the road to Barrow,

----------


## mi16

> When you state  (car still MOT'd) do you mean the car then had the work done and new mot issued before you drove down the road to Barrow,


I dont think so, but I don't think the poster realises that even if you have a MOT certificate when you present for test and it fails the most current test takes precedent I.e. Your "current" MOT becomes invalid.
therefore you drive the length of the country in an unroadworthy vehicle and are damned lucky you were not involved in an incident.

----------


## olrig

mi16. If you care to peruse Section 47(1), Road Traffic Act, 1988-this should to quite clear to you as to where the law stands in relation to MOT"s. This should help to clarify your misunderstanding of road traffic legislation.

----------


## mi16

Section 47 doesn't mention driving an unroadworthy vehicle, but on checks the DVSA site it doe now state that you can take the vehicle away from the test centre if your MOT is still in date
Previously you were only permitted to take to a place of repair and back to a test centre on failure of the test.
in either case driving an unroadworthy vehicle will land you in bother

----------


## olrig

To mi16. Your latest post appears to be a direct contradiction to your previous post. It appears you have little knowledge of Road Traffic Law. I am certain that you are quite wrong in stating that a "new" MOT issued prior to the expiry of the "old" MOT takes precedence. Would dearly like to know where you found this (mis)information.

----------


## olrig

mi16. I have checked the threads re MOT"s. I am still curious as to where you obtained this info??. (still waiting a reply??). The reason I am keeping this going is to ensure that "new" drivers are made aware of the "rights/wrongs re MOT"s.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 is very clear on this matter. 2 things spring to mind: (1) The police do not have the manpower/resources to investigate every vehicle that may appear on their radar (except for stolen/rung/suspect vehicles). 
I have also dug out the original Road Traffic Act 1972, & no surprise to find that Section 47(1) still applied then. 
As said, pse enlighten me as to the source of your (wrong) info.
Should maybe add @ this point I am a retired Glasgow Police Officer.

----------


## mi16

As you can see in #10 I stated that the DVSA have now removed the statement re only being permitted to take your vehicle away to a place of repair. So it seems driving on the old MOT is OK.
As a retired copper you surely cannot condone continued driving of an unroadworthy vehicle though.

----------


## olrig

Hi mi16. Glad to see that my understanding of road traffic law was correct. I would never condone driving an unroadworthy vehicle. As stated a vehicle may be OK at the time of the MOT test, & then to become dangerous on "pick-up"., Glad to point out the obvious to younger/1st time drivers.

----------


## broch

if you check all the previous posts that the seller has put on here you will be able to determine whether or not you can trust his description etc. closed threads are often used to stop other orgers comments (which would also help with your decision). 
 it also helps with your judgement if you check www.dvla.gov/mothistory and merely enter the make and reg of the vehicle to view the vehicles entire mot passes, fails and every advisory its ever had. at the end of the day always remember.... `buyer beware!`

----------


## sam09

Thanks for all replies.  This was a car advertised just outside Thurso.  I telephoned the seller as to condition and history, he did not disclose advisories on latest M.O.T.  When pressed he said there was some advisories  but they were not safety issues and he had not carried out any work on the vehicle I then checked current/ previous M.O.T.`s  on D.V.L.A site. Then walked away.  I always check D.V.L.A site as per M.O.T. history of any vehicle I contemplate buying.

----------


## abz02

Advisories are printed on the mot certificate and cannot be denied. I'd be happy knowing there were issues to be resolved and adjust the price if necessary. If in doubt have the car checked. All testers as mentioned have to be cautious if everything passed without Advisories then the tester can be investigated. If a car is covered in waxoyl it is usually an advisory because they cannot inspect brake/fuel lines properly and they cannot remove protective coatings / undertrays

----------


## broch

i think you will find that the seller has just rec'd a very big fine from trading standards 
 if you check his descriptions on ebay you will find its amazing that all the spare parts he advertizes for sale (usually engines) are from one owner vehicles that all have done just 75,000 miles... coincidence???

----------


## mi16

Any username that we could check out?

----------


## orger1

> i think you will find that the seller has just rec'd a very big fine from trading standards 
>  if you check his descriptions on ebay you will find its amazing that all the spare parts he advertizes for sale (usually engines) are from one owner vehicles that all have done just 75,000 miles... coincidence???


Was this part of the recent Police and Trading Standards "Operation Petra"? 

Surely he should be named and shamed! If this is the case and he's already been "Caught at it" surely people deserve to know who it is? So they don't fall foul of this sort of thing.

----------

