Jump to content

Rapido MOT shock


empress

Recommended Posts

Have worked as an MOT tester for many years, and audited MOT operations for a large motor group.

The tester was perfectly correct, and it depends on his working brief as to what helpful advice he is able to make.

Most technicians are not allowed to speak to customers, it lowers their 'P' earning ability.

Customer speak is front desk, and they are not trained technically in any way usually. Normally just a pretty girl / boy, sometimes a good sales person.

We have a FIAT based A class with RH dip lamps, now ten years old, whilst it is admittedly illegal (C&U) in Britain, it has no problems with MOT, got personally applied tape on.

 

Further tip with tape, under no circumstances shoud it, or any typr of adhesive be applied to the later type of 'plastic' headlight glasses. Serious damage will be caused in a very short time, necessitating new lenses..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancer - 2007-04-20 9:40 PM

 

I trust your third paragraph was not intentionally insulting Brian. People have been banned for less.

We can't aford to lose learned contributors, even if a bit verbose at times.

Steady on Dancer, I think Brian has a point because as you say MOT testers are not allowed to talk to customers instead we have to talk to the service receptionist who's hands on knowledge is not as great as the testers, monkey & organ grinder spring to mind.

I will not have my own vehicles to serviced or tested at a large dealership because of this speak to front desk only attitude. It is nice to see a black greasy thumb print on the MOT or service invoice, usually inflicted by the technician who has done the work on your vehicle. A couple of minutes speaking about any possible future problems can only enhance the customer/garage relationship, customer satisfaction & garage profits.

 

John D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following on from Derek's thread about mod's on importing, it occured to me that if the headlight is marked E?? and under this it is marked <-> then it is proboly adjustable for UK and european use and complies to C&U if adjusted correctly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dancer - 2007-04-20 9:40 PM I trust your third paragraph was not intentionally insulting Brian. People have been banned for less. We can't aford to lose learned contributors, even if a bit verbose at times.

Only just spotted this.  My fault, it was not the contributors I was referring to, but their avatars.  A number seem to put their dogs up to speak for them! 

I'm sorry if that wasn't adequately clear.  Surely no one thought I was referring to them as dogs, did they?  Oh dear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mel B - 2007-04-22 6:14 PM

 

Hey, just cause Starspirit gets away with it (and he's not here at the mo) doesn't mean that you can do it too Colin me old cucumber!

;-)

 

I guess its better I don't make any smart@rse reply as I'm bound to get in trouble (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Brian.

Did'nt make the connection, you're not usually insulting, except to Mel B.

 

JohnD (JayKay) I was not objecting to Brians point, I think he is almost certainly right, I have been there and done it, workshop and front desk.

I was objecting to the - I thought - poor taste comment about dogs in the third para. (See Brains clarification later in the thread).

 

I hope you lot not trying to get me going, only the first name is the same, oh, and the second initial, oh, and the location, nearly.

 

Bye y'all, have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking up on the comments in this thread regarding imported vehicles which, when the headlight beams have been adjusted with beam-benders being able to pass an MOT but still be technically illegal under UK Construction and Use Regulations 1986. I wonder if that would that give a mean-minded insurance company grounds to refuse a claim, if it so wished? More of a risk if it turned out to be a big claim, say because of the value of the M/H involved and perhaps, personal injury claims?

 

I suppose the obvious counter-argument would be that the headlight issue was not material to the claim but such arguments have failed in numerous critical health claims refused by various insurers as reported on the telly over the last few weeks.

 

Bob

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usinmyknaus - 2007-04-23 8:58 AM Picking up on the comments in this thread regarding imported vehicles which, when the headlight beams have been adjusted with beam-benders being able to pass an MOT but still be technically illegal under UK Construction and Use Regulations 1986. I wonder if that would that give a mean-minded insurance company grounds to refuse a claim, if it so wished? More of a risk if it turned out to be a big claim, say because of the value of the M/H involved and perhaps, personal injury claims? I suppose the obvious counter-argument would be that the headlight issue was not material to the claim but such arguments have failed in numerous critical health claims refused by various insurers as reported on the telly over the last few weeks. Bob

Robert

I think this has to be recognised as a possibility.  If the accident was a "back ender", in broad daylight, where your van was back ended and you were claiming from the offending party it (I would sincerely hope) wouldn't arise. 

If however, in other circumstances, it was you/your van that was held to have been the cause of the accident, and it was at night or in poor visibility, and dazzle from your headlights had been a factor, I guess your insurer might decide to meet the third party element (which I believe he has to without question), but might quibble very hard (can you quibble hard?) over your own damage.

A reputable insurer wouldn't do this without due cause, although I suppose a less reputable one might try it on.  It does seem a rather improbable scenario, though not impossible, and if it happened I guess your only remedy, apart from taking the loss, would be to sue the insurance company for breach of contract, on the grounds their decision was unreasonable. 

Suing insurance companies?  Hmmmmmm.  One for those with plentiful time on their hands, and very deep pockets, I think!  Best avoided!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2007-04-23 12:20 PM
Usinmyknaus - 2007-04-23 8:58 AM Picking up on the comments in this thread regarding imported vehicles which, when the headlight beams have been adjusted with beam-benders being able to pass an MOT but still be technically illegal under UK Construction and Use Regulations 1986. I wonder if that would that give a mean-minded insurance company grounds to refuse a claim, if it so wished?

Robert

I think this has to be recognised as a possibility. If the accident was a "back ender", in broad daylight, where your van was back ended and you were claiming from the offending party it (I would sincerely hope) wouldn't arise. . . . . . . A reputable insurer wouldn't do this without due cause

I am having difficulty in accepting that someone who is regarded as an 'expert' is so ill-informed with regard to motoring law.A UK registered vehicle which fails to comply with the relevent regulations whilst being used on a UK road ? That's immediate grounds for dismissing any claim if it's picked up by an insurance assessor on an inspection following an accident. Irrespective of contributory cause.
. . . I guess your only remedy, apart from taking the loss, would be to sue the insurance company for breach of contract, on the grounds their decision was unreasonable.
To quote Mr J McEnroe, "You cannot be serious" ?One poster has already admitted to knowing that his vehicle is illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Ian, just two things.

First, I'm afraid the rather embarrasing title of "expert" was awarded after I'd responded to a certain number of posts, along with the little coloured stars.  No more, no less!  It isn't something I'd particularly wished for, or like, and it certainly isn't my own description of myself.

Second, you'd have to tell me what aspect of "motoring law" you think relevant to this.  An insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer, under which (broadly) the insurer agrees to pay for damage to, or caused by, the insured's vehicle.

In my scenario your vehicle has been run into, in broad daylight, by the person behind you, and you claim against his insurance.  Are you really suggesting, as you seem to be, that you would be happy for his insurer to reject your claim for the damage to your vehicle, because it had non UK compliant headlamps, despite being fully UK roadworthy due to use of "beam benders" or similar?  Would you accept this rationale if you the accident happened abroad, and a foreign insurer refused your claim against his insured, because your vehicle had UK pattern dip beams, even though modified for right hand traffic?

Under any contract, the parties have to interpret the clauses or conditions reasonably.  This is all highly theoretical, but I do not think it would be reasonable for an insurer to cite as a ground for refusing to pay out, a technical defect (but modified so as to be UK roadworthy), in the lighting of the van, where lighting was completely irrelevant to the accident.  To do so could, I think, be fairly judged frivolous, and so open to challenge on that ground.

So, could you sue your insurance company for breach under these theoretical circumstances?  Of course you could.  However, you don't seem to have read on to my final warning, about needing deep pockets to do this, and the comment this situtaion is best avoided (by ensuring the lighting was compliant), though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...